*Updated* Adobe is preparing a major Lightroom Classic performance update, and we got to try it

This article has been updated to include results from a 2015 quad-core Apple MacBook Pro.

Adobe Lightroom Classic users have been pining for a serious performance update for ages—even Adobe admitted that Lightroom performance was lackluster, and improving it was 'top priority.' Well, it looks like 'top priority' is going to pay off very soon.

Late last week, Adobe told DPReview that it has a significant Lightroom Classic performance update in the works. The update—which is "coming soon"—is supposed to improve performance across the board for anybody using a multi-core machine with at least 12GB of RAM. Or, in Adobe's own words:

In this upcoming Lightroom Classic 7.2 release, we were able to make significant strides with our partners at Intel on addressing key performance issues. We have optimized CPU and memory usage so that performance will scale better across multiple cores on computers with at least 12 GB of RAM.

Adobe claims the update will result in:

Faster import and preview generation

Faster walking of images in the Loupe View

Faster rendering of adjustments in Develop

Faster batch merge operations of HDR/Panos

Faster export

The company's own benchmarks back up this claim in a big way. Adobe shared these results with DPReview, revealing substantially improved export times between the current v7.1 and the upcoming v7.2.

Additionally, while subsequent tests of the current version got slower and slower on the Windows, version 7.2 fixes this problem. In other words: Lightroom Classic will no longer slow down over the course of a long editing session on Windows machines.

Our own tests also showed a noticeable speed boost when it came to exporting files, and a massive increase in performance on import. Adobe gave us early access to the new build, and we tested it alongside the current version of Lightroom Classic CC twice. We ran an initial export test on a 2016 13-inch MacBook Pro, with 16GB Ram and a 3.3GHz dual-core i7 processor running macOS 10.12.6, and found a modest but still significant speed improvement of around 11%.

After speaking to Adobe's technical experts, we then conducted a follow-up import and export test on a Mid-2015 15-inch MacBook Pro. Specifically, a Retina model with a 2.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7, 16GB of RAM, and Intel Iris 5200 Pro graphics card. It's not exactly in the same class as the 8+ core powerhouses that Adobe seems to have lying around, but it's arguably closer to the average setup for an enthusiast or semi-professional photographer. Also, despite being an older machine, we knew that according to Adobe, more cores would give us a better chance of seeing some serious performance gains.

As such, these results replace our earlier published figures.

DPReview Import Test (2015 Quad-core MacBook Pro)

When importing 130 Raw files from the Fujifilm X-T2 (7.6GB in total) and building "Standard" previews, we saw a major performance boost in LR Classic CC 7.2 on our quad-core 2015 MacBook Pro. Roughly 80%, in fact.

LR 7.1 - 4:05 (245 seconds)

LR 7.2 - 50 seconds

DPReview Export Test (2015 Quad-core MacBook Pro)

When exporting the same 130 Raw files as JPEGs (quality level 80, Adobe RGB), after heavy edits (including exposure, shadow/highlight adjustment, lens corrections and luminance noise reduction) we saw a modest performance improvement in LR Classic CC 7.2 compared to 7.1. Roughly 10% when averaged out - very similar to the 11% performance increase we saw when we ran the earlier test on our dual-core 2013 Mac.

LR 7.1 - 11:08 (668 seconds)

LR 7.2 - 10:16 (616 seconds)

Adobe was adamant that this update is just the beginning. The company is "pleased with these performance improvements" and believes Lightroom Classic users will be please as well, but Adobe also told us it is "far from done." The company promises continued performance optimizations and improvements in future releases of Lightroom Classic CC.

For now, we're just happy to see the first fruits of that "top priority" promise Adobe made last year.

The faster import and export results are worthwhile but not hugely dramatic. What I'm really hoping for is a dramatic improvement in rendering speeds in Develop, which is something that has a far more dramatic effect on workflow when processing multiple images.

Import and export tend to be done in batches at the beginning or end of a session, when longer times are more acceptable.

Another major and long overdue improvement would be the ability to invert masks - I wonder if this is anywhere on Adobe's horizon?

Why can't Adobe photoshop and Lightroom offer built in camera calibration instead of separated software to produce more accurate result than old outdated DCP calibration software that doesn't come out nice colours.

so customers with standalone version can whistle they get left behind as per

Adobe rip off,NOW we see how Adobe treats customers they try to force them to upgrade to the pay monthly version, or they get no updates.shame on you Adobe.CUSTOMERS SHOULD WAKE UP AND LEAVE ADOBE WHAT MORE PROOF DO WE NEED. YOU CAN NOW SEE HOW ADOBE TREATS LOYAL CUSTOMERS,its all about shareholders with them customers are 2nd priority

Yeah what a rip-off. I got LR5 and a year later they went to LR6 and stopped updating LR5. Same with CS2. Went to 3, 4, 5, 6 and stopped updating CS2 on me. Crooks. I'm out. I'm going to get one of the other top 3 developers cause I guess I'll get lifetime updates for free.

I think that many people who use Photoshop for sophisticated work are enticed by the $10 monthly in lieu of (what) $600-700 stiff purchase price for a license. But if you do not use Photoshop, you simply pay for a product which you do not use. For me the price for LR would be effectively bumped by close to 300%, add to it the risk of losing your work when you stop paying. The CC is $120 annually, $1200 in 10 years, assuming Adobe will keep the same price.

Remember, most damaging expenses are the repetitive small amounts, which we ignore. Go for a coffee and a latte for $10 a day, its $3500 annually, and $35,000 in ten years. This is how Starbucks and Peets can afford so many cafes in best locations. Adobe tries to mimic this scheme, at our cost.

Please do not stop, though, there are still many areas in LR that need to be updated to make good use of modern hardware. Face Detection in one very obvious example, as it still is mostly single-threaded, leaving most of my CPU cores unused for no apparent reason.

I don't think export and import were ever major concerns, you could just go grab coffee/watch a video while you wait, the thing is that sliders must remain responsive even after every slider has been adjusted and spot removal should be without lag after hundreds of edits, like what you would expect in PS.

To DP Staff: Did you run the export tests (on the quad core 2015 mbp) using all photos in one batch? Or did you split the total into 3 groups and export them together?The latter technique is supposed to be a lot quicker, according to some internet writers.Just curious.

I on the current version, but what I'm looking for is a massive streamlining and optimization. More like redefining what LR is. So much has been tacked on since the first release. The DAM is good. Editing is OK - but there's something not quite right there, and never has been. It's too aggressive about writing history states, and that slows it down. Those can be cached and committed when idle. Library and Develop should be combined. Do we really need Books, Maps, People, Web? White balance and color adjustments need to be better thought out. Import and convert to DNG is still hopelessly slow. I can think of more given time.

This is actually how i feel about what they did with LR CC. They've stripped away a lot of what made this software bloated and redundant for users of photoshop as well.

Lightroom was intended to be paired with PS as it was never meant to be the all-in-one solution that many photographers here have made it out to be. It takes an enormous amount of resources to scroll through gigs of raw files and the ability to edit them on the fly with local adjustments and to freely choose another file - rinse and repeat. With photoshop your resources aren't spread thin as you're working on one file at a time usually and well maybe that's how the workflow should be guided as since many don't seem to see it that way. It has always been that way for me and many others who also understood that hey this lightroom thing isn't mean't to replace the functions that photoshop does really really well already.

LR is a DAM software first. Leave the advanced stuff for PS where it's better anyway.

Those wanting all of that functionality that LR Classic had - essentially treating it as a Light Photoshop. . .may be better off with Elements instead. They'll also bypass the subscription that they're all whining about too.

Everyone else I know tend to have treated it as an advanced bridge with PS doing much of the heavy lifting for the most part. And while it may sound like i'm downplaying it by calling it an advanced bridge, there is great value in being able to crop, do global adjustments and batch edits at a blazing speed like it once was.

My pc builds (minus monitor) have all costed less than any pro lens or body.

The responses by some of the pc fanboys are exactly addressing what you're pointing out. They're willing to save 50% of the cost of computing by putting together a powerful computer inside a questionable looking box that won't get any thumbs up by other photographers that are part of the mac tribe. A couple of years down the road they can pop in a stick or two of ram and or add a mid-level videocard and extend the life of that pc.

Programs feel and function identically across both platforms.These folks are going for what gives them the most bang for their buck regardless of what logo, idle desktop environment or aesthetic it possesses.

Mac's are designed beautifully (I recommend them to people that aren't creatives) I won't deny that but my logical brain kicks in and starts to ask: "does any of this matter to me when i'm crunching away on a 50mp file?"

spending just $10 a month or ($120) a year on software vs $1,300K on photoshop software plus $200 for lightroom to not "rent" or have the ability to "own" every couple of years (you're paying for a license of usage regardless) helps a bit too. . . .

I kind of wonder if adobe just sold lightroom for $120 which included 12 months of updates vs marketing it as a subscription service would qualm some of the complaints people have. For me personally It doesn't matter how it's worded.

Moral of this story....spend half as much and get a Win10 10core and spend the other $5000 on equipment that will actually improve your work. Computer don't. Go as cheap as possible with regard to your time.

In other words, Macs cost more AND take longer, so it also costs you your time. Thus an even bigger cost. And more electricity with computer up time. Triple boo!

Lightroom CC is basically the same on mac or pc, so just shut up and get the PC. If not you'll be at a major disadvantage.

If your top like for wedding sales is big, you can earn even more if you shrink your costs, and thus incrase your margins. Mac is always a bad business deal.

Yes, lightroom is slow, but if you really want to speed up your workflow, you need to be using Pfixer or something similar to map all of your adjustment sliders and brushes to a keyboard or external device. If you are still manually moving sliders around with your mouse then I pity you. What an incredible waste of time.

If you are interested, Pfixer is the best, now that RPG Keys and VSCO keys are no longer available. Motibodo is also an option, but its less customizable. You can also map LR functions to a gaming mouse. For example, I have two buttons on my Logitech G700s by my thumb that i use for image navigation, which frees up my left hand to adjust exposure, white balance, contrast, local brush presets, etc.

Not really a tact response, i'm sure it'll ruffle some feathers but you speak a lot of truth.

LR Classic is slow. . . but I do get your point. . .some on here operating on a very consumer friendly Imac with a single hdd drive which are already being taxed by their current o.s. and programs mated with horrible igp's. . .with a reaction of disbelief even at the pedestrian 12gb's of ram suggested for improvement. . .

Mathematically 8gb of ram and single HDD isn't gonna cut it for any software handling hundreds of your 50mp raw files at any given moment. . . .you've got serious bottlenecks to address

I can only imagine how video editing forums look as people are trying to shove 4k raw video footage into similar setups. . .

There is a reason why there was at one point in time an apple workstation(overpriced but it had its market) looked like a PC with multiple drives. The market was not happy with the new pro and left and those that thought they could get by with an imac. . .well. . .

Exactly. Pay half as much, and spend the other on a nice lens. Which will make your work better? THE LENS.

You have a business mind. Don't pay for the "apple experience" (experience of paying more?), go with the lower cost option, that's faster. Then you can get outside and take more pics with your new lens, while your mac friends are stuck at their slow macs with their kit lenses muahahahaha!

Available only a "software for rent", one of the most ugly anti user trends of our times. We need an Executive Order here, something to protect consumers. I am learning Capture One, its really fantastic!

Capture one is on my want list. Many people use both (lightroom DXO Capture one a combo of two). Since lightroom is off my list, C1 seems like the most powerfull, and best default editing program. I'm just hoping i can get it for less then the current 303 euro (-10% included).

In this context lets also mention the true alternative to Photoshop: The PaintShop Pro. I used to have one when the company was Jasc. Now for many years its a part of Corel. If you are not a professional, and make complex image processing only on seldom occasions, just look at this:

and go to their web page for more details. https://www.paintshoppro.com/en/The price is right. Corel has also in its suit the AfterShot, what is a further developed Bibble raw converter, but I am still most taken by C1. The results are simply magnificent and I am getting used to the interface.

Adobe offers this bundle only in order to prevent that anyone would venture away from Photoshop, a quasi monopoly in professional image processing. I hope they will be sorry for their antics.

We have phones today with 8gb of ram in them. Most lines of laptop's sold within the last few years can be had with 16gb, 32gb or more. I wouldn't buy a new laptop or desktop with at least those amounts or more in it and then a couple of years down the road adding another 16gb or more for a total of 32gb or 64gb makes it a sound technology path that will serve you well for a decent amount of time depending on how heavy handed you are with layers, hdr etc. . .

The imac's that apple or other pc makes offer for entry level lines with a paltry 8gb aren't ideal for creatives - they'll also more than likely come with slow hdd's, low vram and other bottlenecks. With 8gb you're just skating by. My laptop currently has 8gb(it began life as 4gb of ram) - I can use lr cc and ps cc just fine but if i have a music program, browser and a multi-image panorama being worked on - it's gonna bring it to it's knees. It's not my sole computer, it's always really been my light duty on the go machine.

I have two laptops that are under 2 years old. Both have 8 GB of RAM. Adding more would be expensive. My desktop is pretty ancient, but I built it from top-of-the-line component about 6 years ago, with frequent upgrades to the hard drives (now with an SSD boot drive) - it is still pretty fast for everything, including video work but excluding Lightroom. The desktop only has 8 GB and it doesn't make sense to invest in more memory (it takes an obsolete format) when I'll probably replace the motherboard and processor in a year.

There is no reason why LR should need 12 GB of RAM to work at at decent speed.

The point that was made is that we have photography technology moving at a pace that is outpacing a lot of people's computer setups. We have still image files rivaling what video files were a few years ago. Only MF shooters were dealing with this kind of data and they had pro workstations.

8Gb's may be fine for jpegs, d700 raws etc. . . - not so much for raws coming out of the latest nikon, canon or sony FF camera. Math tells me that those cameras will easily munch 50% more storage, ram and processing power.

My 8gb laptop did fine with my 5d mk1 files but still slow with pano's and hdr. . .I'm not sure it's resonable for me to expect my laptop to even remotely perform well with a 5ds. . .

My desktop built a couple of years ago has 32 gigs of ram and an 8 core amd cpu built on a budget. . . it cruising along just fine.

8gb is a serious bottleneck if you're a creative and it's the standard amount of ram that they're putting in low end computers which is already a sign to up the ante.

I need to start looking for a new MB/CPU and RAM for my PC. I considered just buying an off the shelf unit, but I have four internal hard drives, a BluRay writter and a DVD writer in mine (two drives makes for faster copying), and off the shelf units typically lack the SATA ports and drive bays - unless I go for an expensive server model.

Their benchmarks are done with server class (Xeon) and high end (Core I-9) CPU's... How about we see the same benchmarks in in Kaby Lake and Skylake processors (6xxx and 7xxxx) and AMD Ryzen processors?

Also the RX Vega 64 and the GTX 1080 graphic cards being used in the benchmark are high end cards which are scarce and featuring inflated prices thanks to crypto currency mining.

Come on Adobe... You won't fool us with those numbers, most shooters don't have that kind of systems you are using in your Benchmarks

I hope Adobe is going to fix other crazy bugs on a Mac, like the side panels turning black (which they claim to have fixed but still happens to me) and the slide show module not running. LR has turned from a useful tool into an extremely aggravating POC. The poor job Adobe has done with it is simply astounding.

I had problems at first with LR Classic occasionally freezing if I deleted any images while in Develop mode, and then switched to Library mode (and vice versa), but this seems to have been cured (on Mac) with the most recent update.

You're cheating yourself. The product has improved enormously since LR4. The most recent update in particular has updated the Auto processing of RAW images so much that I have now made it part of the import step. You might as well update now, enjoy the improvements, and then enjoy the performance boost when it is delivered.

I am sorry to say that Adobe seems to just use more of the available cores.

The underlying reason why LR is slow is inefficient programming of core algorithms, like a lack of loop blocking and unrolling, pipelining, caching, using GPU support etc. This can easiliy be proven by an analysis of the underlying computational complexity of what LR needs to actually compute.

I fear Adobe has lost the engineering competence to address those deeper performance issues.

I think that there is more to it that this. It already uses all four of my cores. What it doesn't do adequately is take advantage of my 6GB GFX 1060 graphics card nor even my 16GB of RAM. (There is almost always still 6-8GB free even when I have a folder open with hundreds of large thumbnails - so I suspect that you are on the mark w.r.t. caching.)

My guess is that Adobe will be pursuing two main avenues: tightening inefficient areas (by hand, and perhaps in assembler) as indicated through execution profiling and rewriting some algorithms to use GPUs.

I already own LR6 "forever". I'd have happily purchased then owned LR7 "forever".

I'm sorry that I'm not cheerful about having the terms of use of a favoured tool changed to ones that aren't acceptable to me. Have I offended you in some way? Do you identify as an 'Adobe'? Perhaps your people could organise against public stigmatisation of your identity. Parades seem popular for that sort of thing. You could call it an Adobe Pride March and chant things like, "We're here! We're only available by perpetual subscription, the lapsing of which will cause us to stop working in any useful way! Get used to it!"

No I just see this idiotic ranting on Adobes subscription service time after time with no end. I pay for Photoshop CC and lightroom and I like that I get all the updates no added charge. And it is barely more than one expresso at Starbucks for a months use. I turn my computer on open PS or Lightroom and it is automaticly the most up to date software and I never need to think about it . It just works. Makes the whole experience so damn easy.

I don't like the subscription model either, but I pay because it's the tool I know, I like the workflow and the alternatives are either missing features (Iridient, Luminar) or are a UI disaster (Capture One) among other issues.

Lightroom was easy, but rendering wasn't very good, plus the catalog system is very complex, on your harddisk (bad implemented imo, apart from metadata filing). I was about to upgrade now. From 4 to 6. It would have costed me 80-150 euro for the 4-6 years i used it. Wich is A LOT lower then subscription. I don't need/ want photoshop, but they try to sell it to me via subscription.

So Capture one and dxo photolab where the possible successors. I got the last cause it had a massive christmas discount. And while i miss some (small niggle) features, overall it's a vast improvement. especially in correcting lens error and ISO noise. And you know what? I might even buy Capture one too eventually. More then i have ever spended on photo software. But that still doesnt warrant/give a wildcard for adobe to steal my wallet monthly. I can now use camera/software for eternnity, until both my wallet allows, and my needs are big enough for a successor, and not when abode wants to. My Wallet happy.

It's 16bit, so 6 bytes each, which makes a 20Mp image expand to almost a gigabyte. But most operations can be done locally or tiled, so there shouldn't be a reason to have more than a couple gigs in use. Huge memory moves might even be part of their performance problems.

6x20 is only 120mb. But I think multiple copies of the image is held in RAM though, and is how the image is updated quickly when you "undo" an edit. You can quickly go back multiple edits (in my old copy of PS anyhow, surely LR is the same). Photoshop (I forget if it's CS5 or CS6) runs OK on my ~8 year old AMD quad core 2.8ghz with 4GB RAM (and a SSD).

Duh. My bad. That makes LR's resource requirements even sillier - I know from watching the resource monitor that developing a 64mp Oly hires file or a raw panorama can easily increase LR's memory consumption by 1 to 2 gigs. I haven't checked PS lately, but it used to be much smarter about operating with limited memory.

A natural choice for a pixel is a 64bit int. Which makes a 50 MP image plane 400 MB.However, LR isn’t efficiently caching edit steps as planes. Otherwise, working on a TIFF of the same size wouldn’t be that much faster than working on a RAW (when using the develop module tools). I am pretty sure too that going back in history more than a step requires a complete rebuild of the image.

4 channel DDR4 (Core i9) reads 400 MB in 70 ms, so working with 50 MP images on a Core i9 system with state-of-the-art code should provide for a user experience which unnoticeable lag, i.e. real time, instantaneous editing. LR just needed to store the current edit result as a plane for the next edit step. However, LR lacks simple optimizations like these and just using more cores doesn’t address the core problem (nice word game...).

Perhaps to preserve as a raw file with complete history of changes. The DNG includes the history inside of it. Otherwise when exported as a raw file the XMP sidecar file must be exported with it to have the same history.

Why would you "export as a raw file"??? The RAW file sits in its import folder and Lightroom displays the changes described in the XMP sidecar file. Neither needs be exported. If you export for print or display then you will do that as TIFF or JPEG etc and the changes are applied on export.

I'm sure the performance benefit seen in "export to DNG" would also apply to "convert to DNG" and a host of other similar tasks.

That said, I for one often export to DNG when converting my images for archiving. It's slightly safer than "convert to DNG" in case there is any kind of error along the way, and you can select a new destination for the DNGs compared to the original files.

When I share an edited file with someone who I want to share edits with, but who I also want to have the "raw" file with the ability to make more edits, reverse mine, etc, then the DNG is a nice option.

Only LR and ACR (Photoshop) will be able to make the changes, as they are specific to Adobe's engine and tools. Other programs will see it as an unedited RAW file straight from the camera. I think some programs might have converters that *approximate* the changes, however.

DNG files are in general smaller than proprietary raw files, so one can potentially save space (~10% or so, if I recall correctly). This is immensely useful for time lapse shooters who shoot thousands of raw files in a week. Imagine a 40 MB raw file times 1000 files = 40 GB. Converting into DNG will save you ~4 GB of space. Also exporting from DNG files is much faster than from proprietary raw files.

(There's also the option to convert to a lossy compressed DNG format—optionally even at a lower resolution—if you want *similar* detail and color information but without quite as much exposure latitude, and at the file size of a high-quality JPEG. This will save you LOTS of space, and is what I do with all my low-rated images I probably will never go back to anyway.)

Thanks to competition from AMD, 6 to 18 cores PCs (especially those below 10 cores) are are getting a lot more affordable than just one year ago. Nowadays, users can get probably get a 8 cores AMD or 6 cores Intel at the price of a fast 4 cores i7 sold one years ago

You could build a respectible photography/indie video rig for under $1k provided you've already got an existing monitor, adobe suites simply won't utilize a high end gaming PC setup. A good amount of ram and ssd are the key components after having a respectable cpu which also doesn't need to be top of the heap. Lightroom and Photoshop barely tap into graphic cards - just as long as it has the minimim required video ram and the drivers will meet recent direct X/open cl requirements is about all you'll need - the gains from a mid-level graphics card to a high-end one for photoshop are very, very negligible. GPU isn't the area to spend your money, i'd rather put it towards ram and or ssd and get a lower level card that meets the requirements.

This will put you in the same performance as a $2k imac for others wanting a point of reference to an apple computer.

I don't believe the Ryzen platform supports quad channel memory - You need to step up to the Threadripper for that. For Ryzen it seems to be that the faster you can get your memory the better it performs. Would quad core help, I don't know and AFAIK no quad channel Ryzen boards are available.

so that's importing and exporting which, frankly, i couldn't care less about. What about rendering times, thumbnail generation speeds, general update speeds when applying changes? You know, actually using it! I can go put the kettle on while its importing/exporting, its when i sit down to use it i want speed increases.

The retention of your folder structure or lack therof is a doozy. I've bitten the bullet and decided to just deal with it and re-organize it bit by bit. I don't have confidence for a fast or great solution to this issue.

LR was never meant to replace PS and in it's fully mature form overlaps certain features that PS does much better and much faster. Now that LR will be Piggybacked with PS. . .it will be the streamlined DAM solution that it was always supposed to be in the first place with some batch editing and processing thrown in for good measure. If the tools are not intuitive to managing a huge amount of photos then I could frankly do without it being within LR.

LR isn't standalone anymore, it doesn't and won't be that all in one solution that some photographers were trying to make it, it was never meant to be. I think this is the point that people are missing here - Just as C1 never did either.

LR can be seen as an advanced and more functional " Adobe Bridge Cloud" for todays cloud computing environment and it does exactly that, even feels like it in some ways.

Do you really think Adobe are foolish enough to cede the market to Capture One?

Once again, like everybody said: quite often the export it the least relevant action, since many of us just go grab a coffee (...in the next town, if exporting hundreds of images) while the computer crunches away.On the other hand, the many micro-freezes ruin the workflow: waiting for the computer to show the result of the healing brush (dozens of times, if retouching skin or simply cloning dust from high-resolution product photography). Or, God forbid, making some geometric corrections...

It seems to me that Windows gains significant more performance than Mac in this upcoming release.

Most importantly Adobe and also DPR are concentrated on import/export times but it's not there where we must concentrate on. I know it's much easier to test import and/or export but the bottleneck is in reviewing images in Library module when you go as fast as possibile from one image to another, even with two screens (one dedicated to have the image in full screen) and you have the "Loading..." or you have the pixellating images because they are still loading!

You have to do the same in Develop Module where LR is supposed to use GPU (which one is enough when a 1080Ti isn't!), or when you are comparing images still in Dev Module. And so forth. These are the tests that count! Especially if you are working with a UHD monitor, which is more common nowadays.

This has been the trend with creative programs in the past few years now as Apple has stopped addressing the needs of the creative professional and instead puts their efforts towards the highly profitable consumer market. Hence why you have a $13k loaded Imac vs a scalable workstation with removable drives and videocards.

Not only are the windows machines able to be more powerful for the cost, developers are increasingly prioritizing their development over Apple. 64bit adobe software was a year or two behind PC during the CS series as Apple was slow to support 64bit computing with their OS. People that edit video and do heavy 3d graphic design were also leaving Apple in droves. They saw how apple was putting all of their eggs in IOS and making their line-up look, feel, function and service like an iphone.

I agree. Adobe has made improvements to LR solely for the purpose of getting more instagram/facebook smart phone users on to subscription for LR Mobile. The billions of smart phone users dwarfs the DSLR professionals.

Azimuth46 said "It seems to me that Windows gains significant more performance than Mac in this upcoming release."

This was at least partially explained in the story. Windows will, from a relative standpoint, appear to have more gains in this version, but it's because there has been a well known bug in the existing version where Windows Lightroom got slower and slower over time, a bug that was not on the Mac. From an absolute standpoint, it means Windows LR was hobbled before and now reaching performance parity with Mac.

Esco said " 64bit adobe software was a year or two behind PC during the CS series"

Maybe true during the CS series, but actually, one of the frustrating things about using Aperture, was that even though Aperture was Apple's own application, Lightroom came out with a 64-bit Mac version before Aperture did.

@esco, I am currently trying to build a high end Core i9 windows machine and I am having trouble to match or beat the price of the base model iMac Pro (which uses Xeon and ECC and a 5k monitor). But you are right for a maxed out iMac Pro.

For those that are arguing about how they need to fix LR's speed and that they owe you because you're on a subscription. . . they're still offering you the software you're paying for and it's called LR CC just as they're offering PS CC. LR Classic is now a legacy software.

For those whining about the subscription concept ($120 a yr) Im not sure if buying C1 for $300 is a way of sticking it to the man (adobe) , You're paying more for software that doesn't support all camera brands and many of you still need PS. . .it just doesn't make much sense imo. Using Luminar or Dark Table would make more sense as a sign of protest.

Phase One has no incentive to support their competition's image development as can be illustrated by their lack of Fuji support for the GF. It's a great piece of software but I didn't find it to be significantly faster, it's not as intuitive for my style of workflow and isn't as seamless when vollying back and forth with photoshop.

I just don't get the mentality of some of these people. I remember photoshop being over $1,000 (closer to $1,300) back in the day, and of course when new technology comes out, etc... one had to essentially pay another kings ransom to upgrade to the newer release. Damn, that was pricey!

Now I can have Photoshop and Lightroom together for $100/year and keep it current? That's far cheaper than what I would have paid for a perpetual license that never gets updated after the new release comes out.

What's even more baffling are the "owners" of these perpetual licenses then complain that that their old, outdated software isn't being updated anymore.

Assume for a moment that business are in it to make money. They are not going to spend money and resources updating legacy software for free. It's not a conspiracy, it's not greed, it's simple business. The subscription model makes sense.

Because you've never actually owned the software. . .it's an IP that's constantly evolving with licenses sold for the right to use it. . .

And other similar software makers are doing the same thing actually. Capture one will also be forced to evolve because people will want the ability to use it wherever they go. Being limited to desktop isn't much of a value proposition at all when everything around you is headed towards that way of computing.

Is it semantics perhaps that's bothering you? Eventually software no longer becomes supported by the hardware you will be using to stay current and it becomes a huge hassle to try and figure out how you can keep it working. . .

Adobe hate is the current rage. Nothing they do at this point will assuage the anger of many. They waited to long to address issues that have been prevalent for years. Having said that, I'm still going to use their products. I don't have the time to learn something new, and both LR and Photoshop work well enough for me that changing is not happening. No use getting upset about--it is what it is.

LR has shifted from a reliable tool I use daily in my job to a flaky and erratic stuttering mess that is achingly slow. This has occurred in the last year. I rely on it for DAM but it has become almost useless, especially when there are big 64 gb cards to import and edit. Have had to use bridge to import jobs in order to meet deadlines. As it stands it is dysfunctional buggy junk and I will not recommend to anyone....especially my students.

I would love to be able to use what lightroom promises BUT they recently moved the goalposts with the "upgrade" which crippled the tool that worked very well for me and is/was the core of my practice. There is no real substitute out there for what is an essential part of my workflow. I moved to lightroom years ago when another company "orphaned" me by no longer supporting my camera/s (extensis portfolio). Switching was a lot of work, but in the end was worth it, especially because of the integration with the entire Adobe ecosystem. I was confident that Adobe was not going to do the same as happened to me with Extensis. I really, really hope this situation is temporary and will be fixed soon. The "test" dpreview has done suggests that things are better but still not OK. GRRRRRR

I am using a one year old gaming laptop with good specs, ssd, lots of ram and a good video board. Photoshop is fast, lightroom was okay but after 7 it slowed down a lot. My computer is fine thank you. My catalogue is 160,000 images.

Lightroom classic does indeed slow down even on cutting edge setups. . .that's common knowledge by now. The phenomenon seems to occur more so when you're working on it for extended periods of time. It may never affect you if you're working with jpegs or with smaller batches of files for 30min at a time though.

Not good enough. I am using a fairly new, fast laptop and the specs quoted by adobe do not look at all like my gear. I can look forward to very little improvement, time to find a DAM system that works. Tired of wrestling with this dog.

Great news!!! Get yourself a 10-core, 64GB RAM, and a 16GB graphics card for the tiny amount of just $6,000 to $8,000 and your imports will improve significantly.For other performance improvements, you, the ungrateful user, are asking too much.

Exactly.Import and export are good moments of the day to flick through the mail or get up from the desk and make an expresso.So who cares if they improved those performances, which already were acceptable.What is unacceptable is the lag between changing panes, while previewing, zooming or moving a slider.

So what happens to AMD processor users? Users with Ryzen and Threadripper builds which consistently gives slower performance than 2 generation old intel CPU simply because of lack of optimization? When is Adobe going to do something about that?

well heavy multi threaded applications can take a lot of advantage of amd architecture, even though single threaded performance is not as fast as intel ( now with ryzen AMD has closed the gap pretty much ). To be honest and i know i have an old cpu, but i do see LR making use of the 4 cores of my Phenom 955 on export and in editing. Maybe LR just scales to 4 cores currently?

LR can currently use about 16-20 threads out of 32 of my Threadripper threads, so LR can scale, but performance of my 3.7GHz 16 core CPU is lagging behind my old 8 core 4.0GHz Intel CPU. Intel optimization is already very good with LR and other adobe products, when comparing to AMD. So I think adobe should really do something about it :)

Performance increase is most valuable on regular machines, which are the ones who suffer most from LR performance issues. At each new Adobe release, we are advertised about major performance increases. We'll be disappointed, as always. 10%... come'on !

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

We spoke to wildfire photographer Stuart Palley about his experiences shooting the recent Woolsey fire, why the Nikon Z7 isn't quite ready to take a permanent spot in his gear bag, and 'that' Tweet from Donald Trump.

The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.

Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.

The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.